"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Will the ACLU and the Discovery Institute Team Up On Behalf of Guillermo Gonzalez?

R. Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties of Iowa, said the organization will be "very interested observers" in the Gonzalez tenure case.

He stopped short of saying whether or not Gonzalez is being treated fairly.

"We believe fervently in academic freedom, and professor Gonzalez is entitled to a procedurally fair and objective analysis of his academic abilities and achievements, and if he doesn't get that, then that's a problem," said Stone, who was in attendance at the press conference. "We're obviously expressing no view expressing whether or not that's happened."

3 Comments:

Interesting question. I agree that when Sagan and Gould use the "God would not/should not/could not do X" OR make some kind of moral statement about the supposed nature of God that displeases them in light of their interpretation of ethics or politics, something fishy is going on. On the one hand they are more than happy (as with Sagan and SETI advocacy, and Crick with alien DNA strings) to posit ideas about God or gods or just powerful forces as their own design parameter, but on the OTHER hand disdain "design parameters" when it comes to biogenesis, the origin of life and thought, or intervention by a force outside of known parameters in science.

Was Gonzalez turfed because of his ID views, or because he had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation?

We have a case in Australia of someone fired for being Santa. He hit the headlines because he claimed he was fired for saying "Ho Ho Ho", but it turned out he was just a bad employee. But, hey, the other makes a better story, don't it?

Good question. Regardless, of the tenure decision, the evidence indicates that the faculty intended to discriminate against him for taking a certain position that has support in the greater scientific community (observing fine tuning). They also plotted to create a hostile work environment. Even if there were other grounds for denying him tenure, I think this violated his rights.

About Me

I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence.
It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.